Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Zeneca Agro Chemicals Ltd. Chennai on 31 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/556/2002
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.44/2002 (M-I) dated 09.07.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble DR. CHITTARANJAN, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.Zeneca Agro Chemicals Ltd. Chennai
Respondents
Appearance :
Shri T.H. Rao, SDR Shri R. Raghavan, Adv. For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 31.08.2009 Date of decision : 31.08.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs.4,18,837/- by disallowing credit taken by the assessees on Furnace Oil used in the manufacture of electricity used further for the manufacture of steam supplied to/transferred to M/s.ICI Ltd., together with interest and imposed penalty of amount equal to credit disallowed. The demand was confirmed under the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that there is no suppression on their part with intention to evade payment of duty, set aside the penalty imposed under provisions to Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, while upholding the duty demand and interest which was not disputed before him. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. We have heard both sides. The Revenue seeks that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority be restored on the ground that the payment of duty together with interest before issue of show-cause notice is not a ground to set aside penalty. However, we find that the penalty has been set aside for the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the assessees were not guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty as the department was aware of expunging credit as a routine and in fact the amounts of credit reversed were shown in the RT-12 returns. This finding that there is no suppression on the part of the assessees has not been challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal. While we agree with the Revenue that the payment of duty and interest before the issue of the show-cause notice is not a ground for setting aside the penalty, since we note, in the present case, that penalty has been set aside as a result of holding that there is no suppression by the assessees, there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order which we accordingly uphold. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
01-09-2009
??
??
??
??
1
5